Academy: "Folks like unforeseen mishaps that help keep us in the conversation longer than normal? Inconceivable!"
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
92nd Oscar Nominees
- Thread starter vestan
- Start date
Having watched The WIfe I can assure you that it is by no means mediocre. It is most certainly unseen... and hardly rates as a film one would go out to see at a theatre. But it is NOT mediocre.
The other narrative Zellweger has going for her is that while she's won an Oscar before, Judy Garland never did... so this is apparently the Academy's way to posthumously award her an Oscar. As if it's going to leave Renee's trophy case and go to Garland's estate or something.
What, isn't that exactly what happened with Freddie Mercury's Oscar that Rami Malek won?
...yeah, the Academy is really bad about giving awards for the person that's being portrayed, rather than the actor themselves.
Flaming hot take
Just wondering if I'm still the only person who doesn't like that BP is given to producers only.
This year 8/9 nominees have the director as producer. Only Little Women doesn't. Doesn't it seem f*cked up that if Little Women were to win, the person who wrote and directed it would not be awarded or recognized? If already 8/9 include the director, why not just include the directors officially?
Yes, I know BD exists. IDK. Just feel like the producers being the only ones that matter is so old Hollywood or whatever.
Just wondering if I'm still the only person who doesn't like that BP is given to producers only.
This year 8/9 nominees have the director as producer. Only Little Women doesn't. Doesn't it seem f*cked up that if Little Women were to win, the person who wrote and directed it would not be awarded or recognized? If already 8/9 include the director, why not just include the directors officially?
Yes, I know BD exists. IDK. Just feel like the producers being the only ones that matter is so old Hollywood or whatever.
I did see The Wife and in a theatre no less. It's a solid 6/10. There is really nothing remarkable about the film besides the pretty good Glenn Close performance.
This week's results have been revealing but also encouraging, personally. Out of Hollywood, 1917 and Parasite, I expected Tarantino's film to be the front-runner nominee, if anything, because I thought impossible that the Academy would choose a foreign film as the best of the year. Now, I'm starting to think that it could happen; with the support of SAG behind, plus a strong representation from other guilds, there's a serious chance that Bong and the team take the Oscar home.
At this point, the main obstacle for this history-making moment seems to be 1917, a technically splendid, far more conventional film story-wise, bound to get the highest number of awards during Oscar's evening. PGA is too big to ignore, and in a year with no strong social theme supporting any nominee, I could see a return to a big spectacle from a major winning the prize. It's my opinion, despite its technical merits, that 1917's greatest quality resides in its classical, approachable tone, that in the least negative sense of the word, it is 2019's representative of the academic, prestigious films that British filmmakers (and producers) have ready around this season any given year.
As for Hollywood, I feel that its chances have evaporated except for Brad Pitt as Supporting Actor and some below-the-line category. 1917 could perfectly take Production Design, so I wouldn't count that one either. Curiously, this is a film that never looked to me like a shoo-in for an Oscar; only when the race started, with the critics sharing their lists, it seemed to have the winner's momentum; but within the industry, there never was an advantage to begin with. That's not even mentioning the nature of the film itself: that violent climax should get a big nay from the oldest sector of the Academy, which is, the core part of it. Anyway, you see the awards it has won until now, Brad Pitt's the only constant there, followed at a long distance by PD (I don't think it's going to happen) and Screenplay (more doubtful by the hour).
At this point, the main obstacle for this history-making moment seems to be 1917, a technically splendid, far more conventional film story-wise, bound to get the highest number of awards during Oscar's evening. PGA is too big to ignore, and in a year with no strong social theme supporting any nominee, I could see a return to a big spectacle from a major winning the prize. It's my opinion, despite its technical merits, that 1917's greatest quality resides in its classical, approachable tone, that in the least negative sense of the word, it is 2019's representative of the academic, prestigious films that British filmmakers (and producers) have ready around this season any given year.
As for Hollywood, I feel that its chances have evaporated except for Brad Pitt as Supporting Actor and some below-the-line category. 1917 could perfectly take Production Design, so I wouldn't count that one either. Curiously, this is a film that never looked to me like a shoo-in for an Oscar; only when the race started, with the critics sharing their lists, it seemed to have the winner's momentum; but within the industry, there never was an advantage to begin with. That's not even mentioning the nature of the film itself: that violent climax should get a big nay from the oldest sector of the Academy, which is, the core part of it. Anyway, you see the awards it has won until now, Brad Pitt's the only constant there, followed at a long distance by PD (I don't think it's going to happen) and Screenplay (more doubtful by the hour).
It's always felt a little silly to me, similar to how after a team wins the Super Bowl the first thing they do is give the trophy to the owner of the team and interview them when the spotlight should be on the players and coaches.
Producing a movie has a LOT of ins-and-outs. It can be as little as only having your name included on a poster to really overseeing every single aspect of the movie - much more than the director would do in some circumstances. A lot of people assume the director is the top of the hierarchy on the movie set but that's not really the case.
Using this links example: Best Actors go to the athletes, Best Director goes to the coach, and Best Picture goes to the GM (who can also be the coach, but isn't always).
It's going to be curious to see how far Parasite's momentum can carry it in some of these below-the-line technical categories vs. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Like, I sort of feel committed to favoring the latter for both PD and Screenplay unless Parasite manages to best it in a meaningful precursor of some kind... and it kind of can't at this point.
We're kind of flying blind given that Once's script isn't WGA-eligible, Parasite wasn't nominated for Production Design at the BAFTAs and they're in separate categories for the Art Directors Guild awards.
For some reason, I feel more confident in Tarantino winning for Screenplay the more likely it seems like Picture and Director fall out of reach (because Academy voters will flock to support the film in a category where it can actually win).
(I do believe Parasite has Best Editing on lock now.)
Last edited:
I just really want Parasite for Production Design. Like, aside from all the big categories, there's always one technical that I feel really strongly about. Usually it's cinematography, but this year it's PD.
Parasite's production design is like... Boyhood being filmed over 12 years!!!!!!!!!!! They built that entire city block!!!!!!!!
I had a Vietnam-esqe flashback to the discourse of La La Land vs Moonlight back in the old days.
God that was the worst.
God that was the worst.
It probably depends a big deal, as you suggested, on the group mentality that could develop among voters. I believe that such things happen, that there's a compensatory effect on display, that's why it's hard to see films with many nominations not getting anything (though it could happen again for Scorsese with The Irishman).
My impression is that Mendes, Bong and Tarantino could win at least in one category, though Tarantino seems to me the weakest option. I'm only reluctant to be certain about it, because the other clear choice for Screenplay is Bong, and I have a hard time believing that the Academy is going to vote for him in three different categories (aside of International Film). In 2015, Iñárritu won three Oscars, so there's a recent precedent, but pulling it off even with International Film in the mix is equally difficult. So the question here would be: which is easier for Bong to get, Directing or Screenplay? With 1917''s Mendes winning PGA, I think that DGA could follow closely. Will the IF be enough for the Academy in regard to Parasite? This movie seems destined for a bigger night than that, and the only Oscar left would be Screenplay...
On the 25th of this month, DGA winners will be known. I thnk by then all this puzzle will feel much clearer.
He's done pretty well so far. DiCaprio has already won and I think Pitt sort of upstages him in that movie. Antonio Banderas should actually win but Pain and Glory didn't quite get enough traction overall to push him over the hump. Adam Driver is probably a bit too early, they hate rewarding young people on their first couple go arounds. and Pryce seems like just a courtesy pick.
honestly the people making these decisions don't actually watch as many movies as we think they do.
I liked Zelwegger in Judy but honestly, her competition is Ronan and this is her fourth academy award nomination.
Renee is 50 years old, Ronan is 25.
I don't think anyone has ever been nominated for 4 Oscars before they turned 26. At some point you have to figure they're going to give Ronan the same courtesy afforded to everyone, which is a token Oscar for something she wasn't that good in.
Renee is 50 years old, Ronan is 25.
I don't think anyone has ever been nominated for 4 Oscars before they turned 26. At some point you have to figure they're going to give Ronan the same courtesy afforded to everyone, which is a token Oscar for something she wasn't that good in.
I think the general trend of split decisions on Director/Picture will probably continue this year. And while I'd personally like to see Bong and Parasite take both, a Director's nod to 1917 and Picture nod to Parasite would still be phenomenal and still tear down a lot of tradition that needs to be further sidelined in the global climate film finds itself in.
A supporting actor is the person who doesn't drive the main action, but supports the character who drives the main action. Given that Cliff Booth is a stunt double to the film's insecure protagonist, that makes him a supporting character regardless of his screen time. In effect everything he does in the film is to "support" or protect the main character.
It's sometimes hard to see. However QT also designates the lead and supporting in his Oscar campaign I believe.
Lead and supporting have always been wonky and prone to the voters, studios, the actors themselves and more jockeying for position, to say nothing of the fact that storytelling doesn't always break into such easy categorization.
For instance, Silence of the Lambs is a classic example. Anthony Hopkins had only 16 minutes of screentime and honestly could have been put in either category with strong arguments for the placement. But it went Lead, because, hell, watch that movie and find a way not to remember that role vividly.
That said, I agree with Pitt as supporting. All of his actions are more or less in service to DiCaprio's character and Pitt's character arc is pretty flat (not that that's a negative here, simply what is).
The tricky part about this is that it's kind of hard to manufacture a split decision... especially with the preferental ballot in play for Best Picture. The fact that 1917 and Parasite are now the prohibitive front-runners, neither landed an acting nom, no film since the 1950s without acting noms has won Best Picture without also winning Director and... well, it complicates things. Especially when direction is the key strength of both movies. How do you half-measure one and then say the other movie is more deserving of the Best Picture prize?
A director/picture split always made the most sense to me if Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was leading the Best Picture pack... and that no longer feels like it's the case. I'm kind of thinking Director and Picture will both go the same way... what I'm not sold on is whether DGA will portend the Best Director outcome as it largely has since 2003. I can still see Bong Joon-ho winning the DGA, 1917 winning BAFTA (British director and all that) and Mendes sweeping both categories at the Oscars.
Oh, absolutely, and the rest of your post is wonderful.
Just wanted to make sure to address the manufacturing thing. Nothing bothers me more when it comes to Oscar discussion than people thinking it's some smoky backroom with like 5 people picking stuff. Sure, trends and the general vibe of what "deserves" to be picked can permeate the general voting body, but it always shows a deep lack of knowledge when people say stuff like that.
Basically, just wanted to be clear I'm not in that camp!
Absolutely, I'm unsure if that's what is going to happen, but Bong as director is a strong possibility. While 1917 is probably more of a team effort, a la Mad Max a few years ago, I find Parasite's superb acting to reflect highly on Bong's efforts: he not only shot a beautiful film, but also directed, with great results, the large group of actors he had to work with. A nod in that sense could be shared with the cast (ignored, on the other hand, by the members of the Academy).
My thought was more along the lines of, if you had to choose only one for Parasite to win which would it be?
I'd love to see him get the director's nod, but the long-term meaning of a foreign film winning the Picture Oscar would be monumental.
Sony hedging their bets and going for a sure win is what makes Brad Pitt the supporting actor.
Because he's in a supporting role? His character literally supports Leo's character. I don't think there could be a more black-and-white interpretation of "supporting actor" here.
Sorry, now I see my answer followed the opposite logic. ;) Well, yes, Picture would be the most significant victory, I agree. Though now that we've covered both possibilities, I still think that Directing is slightly more probable. If it was to me, though, I'd vote for Parasite on both categories as well.
What are the chances oscar does something right and give parasite best picture? After not even nominating the best performance of the year Willem Dafoe. And giving nominations to Adam Sandler and Robert from Twilight?
The movie is about
Leo's career, from the beginning until the very end scene. I loved Brad Pitt in that movie but he is very much the secondary character to the arc of the movie.
The only other one was Jennifer Lawrence, who really was nominated for so many in just a five year period because the academy was caught up in the hype of her rapid rise to superstardom (American Hustle and Joy were not award worthy performances, that's for sure), and given she's since dropped off a cliff career wise and virtually vanished I don't see her being nominated again without some sort of big comeback down the line. Fast rise, fast descent.
Ronan has the complete opposite career, where she's never been in a film that grossed over 100M in the US (Little Women will be her highest grossing film ever), but has consistently been regarded as one of the genuine best young actresses since she was a kid. So she'll be nominated time and again in the future, you can be sure about that.
Funny enough, a lot of the same would apply to Zellwegger. She'd been around a few years longer but she swept into the Oscars with three consecutive noms culminating in that 2003 win. Within a few years she was in nothing for a long period until this minor comeback.
I look forward to Lawrence suddenly reappearing in 2030 in a mediocre biopic of Renee Zellweger and winning over Ronan's ninth nomination.
I heard they did the same thing with Boyhood, which makes it all the more impressive.
Linklater paid Cumberbatch to show up every day and wait in a room when filming Boyhood?
And then her actual Oscar worthy performance was in Snub: The Movie aka Mother!
After learning about how the Best Picture actually decided, I don't think Joker will win it. Imo its not a movie that will consistently nab top 3 votes with the people who decide it.
Reading twitter, I get the impression many people didn't actually watch Marriage Story.
The "its two hours of yelling" complaint is kind of a dead giveaway.
The "its two hours of yelling" complaint is kind of a dead giveaway.
Right now I still think it is going to either 1917, Parasite, or maaaaaaaaybe Once Upon a Time.
